Detailed Description Of Concealment Not Mandatory Under Section 27 Evidence Act: Bombay High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Child Is Not A Pawn To Prove Mother's Adultery: Andhra Pradesh High Court Dismisses Husband's DNA Test Petition In Desertion Divorce Case Shareholder Ratification Cannot Cure Fraud Under SEBI's PFUTP Regulations: Supreme Court Restores Rs. 70 Lakh Penalty on Company When High Court Judges Themselves Disagree on the Answer, Can a Law Graduate Be Penalised for Getting It Wrong? Supreme Court Says No Superficial Burns Don't Mean Silence: Supreme Court Explains Why 80-90% Burn Victim Could Still Make a Valid Dying Declaration Daughter's Eyewitness Account, Dying Declaration Seal Husband's Fate: Supreme Court Upholds Life Sentence for Wife-Burning Murder Supreme Court Rejects Rs. 106 Crore Compensation Claim; Directs SECL to Supply Coal to Prakash Industries at 2014 or 2019 Prices for Wrongfully Suspended Period Section 319 CrPC | Trial Court Cannot Conduct Mini Trial While Deciding Application to Summon Additional Accused: Supreme Court Accused Can't Be Left Without Documents To Defend: Calcutta High Court Directs Adjudicating Authority To First Decide Whether Complete 'Relied Upon Documents' Were Served In PMLA Proceedings Husband Who Took Voluntary Retirement at 47 Cannot Escape Maintenance Duty: Delhi High Court Upholds ₹10,000/Month to Wife and Daughter Cannot Claim Monopoly Over a Deity's Name: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Trademark Injunction Against 'Kshetrapal Construction' Eviction Appeal Cannot Require Actual Surrender Of Possession, Symbolic Possession Sufficient: J&K High Court Amendment Introducing Time-Barred Relief And Changing Nature Of Suit Cannot Be Allowed: Karnataka High Court Counter Claim Is An Independent Suit: MP High Court Rules Properties Beyond Territorial Jurisdiction Cannot Be Dragged Into Counter Claim Co-Sharer Cannot Be Bound By Passage Carved Out Without His Consent: Punjab & Haryana High Court Modifies Concurrent Decrees ‘Prima Facie True’ Is Enough to Deny Liberty: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses Bail in Babbar Khalsa Terror Conspiracy Case High Court Cannot Quash FIR for Forgery When Handwriting Expert's Report Is Still Awaited: Supreme Court Supreme Court Calls for Paternity Leave Law, Says Father's Absence in Child's Early Years Leaves a "Quiet Cost" That Lasts a Lifetime Three-Month Age Cap for Adoptive Mothers' Maternity Benefit Struck Down: Supreme Court Reads Down Section 60(4) of Social Security Code Bank Cannot Rely on Charter Party Agreement to Justify Remittance Contrary to Customer's Instructions: Supreme Court 19 Candidates Linked to Accused, Papers of Five Subjects Leaked: Allahabad High Court Upholds Cancellation of UP Assistant Professor Exam Result

Legal Services by Lawyers Not Covered Under Consumer Protection Acts Due to Their Duty-Bound Nature” – Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court has clarified that legal services provided by lawyers are not covered under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and its 2019 iteration. This decision emphasizes the unique, duty-bound nature of the legal profession which is integral to the administration of justice.

The core legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the services rendered by lawyers could be classified under the ‘service’ category as defined by the Consumer Protection Acts of 1986 and 2019, thereby subjecting lawyers to the provisions of these acts concerning ‘deficiency in service’. The apex court, presided over by Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal, has categorically ruled out such an inclusion.

The matter arose from several appeals led by the Bar of Indian Lawyers against the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission’s (NCDRC) earlier decision, which had held that complaints of deficiency in service against advocates could be adjudicated under the Consumer Protection Act.

Nature of Legal Services: The court highlighted that legal services are not merely commercial but are crucial to the justice delivery system, involving duties to the court, the client, and the broader judicial framework.

Legislative Intent and Interpretation: Delving deep into the legislative history and intent behind the Consumer Protection Acts, the court observed that the primary objective was to shield consumers from unfair trade practices in commercial scenarios, not professional services.

Comparative Jurisprudence: The judgment also touched upon international practices in countries like Malaysia, the European Union, Canada, the USA, and Australia, noting a common approach to exempt professional services, including legal, from the ambit of consumer protection laws.

Legal Profession’s Distinctiveness: It was further emphasized that the legal profession, regulated under the Advocates Act, 1961, stands unique among other professions due to its integral role in upholding justice and democracy.

Decision: Concluding its extensive analysis, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the order of the NCDRC. It was held that complaints alleging deficiency in service against advocates are not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, categorizing legal services under ‘contract of personal service’ which are excluded from the act.

Date of Decision: 14th May 2024.

Bar of Indian Lawyers Through Its President Jasbir Singh Malik vs. D.K. Gandhi PS National Institute of Communicable Diseases and Anr.

Latest Legal News